That's false.
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
Those appeals did not involve the right to run for or assume the office of president.
Miller v Albright was about a child born out of wedlock.
A law providing narrower standards for United States citizenship for a child born abroad out of wedlock to an American father, as opposed to an American mother, was justified by important government interests and did not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
Rogers v Bellei dealt with special residency rules imposed by Congress on a person born ouside the U.S. Those rules were repealed in 1978.
Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.
And Fiallo v Bell was another immigration by children born out of wedlock appeal when one parent is a U.S. citizen.
There are lawsuits that have been filed that directly challenge Senator Cruz and Senator Rubio as to their right to run for president. We’ll have to wait and see how those lawsuits and appeals are adjudicated, but the Illinois Board of Elections has already ruled that Senator Cruz is eligible:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268043-illinois-board-of-elections-rules-cruz-eligible-for
.